lol this is great.

Also the line "if it saves one life than its worth it" is complete BS. We would have zero freedom, speed limited would be 10 mph, etc if that were true.

Firearms are the great equalizer. Never heard that one. But what happens when that woman's son grabs her gun, shoots her with it, then shoots up a classroom of kids?

Apparently takes away the ability of every person in the US to defend themselves because we can't possibly do anything else to limit, stop and prevent that from happening.

We look for ways to prevent that from happening that don't infringe on people's right to defend themselves.

Apparently that hasn't happened yet. And it ain't gonna happen in america for at least 50 to 100 years. Your ponies are slow.

None if this will change your right to self defense. I don't think anyone is talking about changing self defense laws.

The problem with your post here is that people should take the time to read this because it addresses issues on both sides of the debate and isn't as one-sided as you make it seem.

.

It's not possible to prevent this from happening without infringing on people's right to defend themselves.

So in this video he is demonstrating how to kill 20+ people in just 40 seconds.
Why he needs that?
Is he preparing for war? Shouldn't he be a member of a militia then?
Is he going to fight "bad guys" on his own, thus putting other people in danger by his reckless actions?
If its just a "sport" why can't he use an air rifle for same purpose?
Or is he preparing a terrorist act?

If he strives for authenticity and enjoyment, why cant the rifle just be safely kept at shooting range and not taken outside?
If I want to race on a powerful racing car, I take it to the racing track, not the busy city streets.

Did you even read any of that or are you just ignoring it on purpose?

For a rational person open to both sides of the argument it's not one-sided. For a brady buncher who just wants to start banning stuff it is.

How so?

Should have banned fertilizer then huh?

Because the ability to control recoil is an integral part of shooting firearms and is not present in air rifles.

As for the rest of your questions, it's a hobby (well, for him, it's a profession because he gets paid to do it, but for the majority of people who compete in these competitions, it's just something they do on weekends). Might as well ask the chess player why he plays chess.

And winning#

Brady Bunch. Damn. What ****ty hand to be dealt as far as names go. Makes 'em sound like a bunch of wimps and weaklings.

For the thousandth time, self defense. Anti gunners talk so much about how people aren't trained with guns and they just kill people on purpose or on accident and then when someone trains its pointless and they're obviously crazy for wanting to be able to use a weapon correctly and efficiently if they need to defend themselves with it.

Oh ya, what's the prize? The rest of the industrialized world begs to differ.

Ok, lesson 2 for persuading people via arguments: don't call people you disagree with names. It's hard to get someone you call names to take you seriously.

Theoretically possible? Sure. For random 2+2er? Probably not feasible. But that isn't what you guys are asking for, you're asking for a prediction about the future. Nobody here, or anywhere else, can give you a serious answer because its unknowable. I know you're on the .50 cal thing, and I think its great that nobody has ever committed a mass murder with that gun. I am not saying we should ban .50 cal rifles, or any gun necessarily. I just get rustled when people ask unanswerable questions and think they've made any kind of point about anything

the government is already actively infringing on your right to defend yourself. why haven't you gone ruby ridge yet?

The only way to absolutely prevent children from getting a hold of their parent's gun is for the parents to not own a gun in the first place. And not being able to own a gun would infringe on the parent's right to defend themselves with a gun.

Gun ownership has to do with your ability to defend yourself, not your right. You have a right to gun ownership based on the 2nd amendment. Taking away the 2nd amendment would not take away your right to defend yourself. It would change how you are able to defend yourself. But in that case just get a taser or something.

This is so key.

I'm not allowed to own an ICBM to protect myself from North Korea, but that doesn't mean my right to self defense has in anyway been suppressed.

Actually the reason I ask that particular question and don't ask similar questions about other guns is PRECISELY because it IS knowable for that particular type of gun, or at least is as close to knowable as you're going to get.